Is personal privacy something that should be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism?

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”: Said Thomas Jefferson, arguably one of the greatest apostles of human rights of all time. For the critical thinkers amongst us, such argument is a self-contradicting paradox. By definition, the process of vigilance is a state of keeping careful watch on others for possible danger, such as terrorism. Ironically, the perpetual watchfulness undoubtedly impinges on the privacy and liberty of individuals. How should a modern democracy like Britain, striking the fine balance of preserving privacy and yet securing safety, is often the dilemma of an age-old debate.

The root of political liberty and privacy stems from the Greek concepts of freedom from slavery, with the ideal of independence from a master. Such belief is also closely linked to the concept of democracy, as proposed by Aristotle. The foundation of modern liberty was only initiated when the Magna Carta was drawn in 1215. Originally known as the Charter of Liberty, the display of the document at the British Library is the stark reminder of how the principle became the cornerstone of liberty in England, Great Britain and the rest of the world. The 21st century Britain must maintain its relevance by continuing to play a key role in shaping the ideologies of rights, privacy and liberty, without compromising the society to the violence of terrorism. The question is: Is personal privacy something that should be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism? If so, how far is the intrusion permissible?

Being born in Britain and raised in the Asia, I cannot help but realizing the concept of individual privacy is a modern construct primarily a “rights” in the West, but a “Privilege” in the East. The boundaries of what constitutes “private” differ among cultures, and countries where the word “privacy” is untranslatable and may not even exist. In Malaysia and Singapore, the “privilege” of not to be subjected to unsanctioned invasion by the establishment, is often very limited and enforced by laws and constitution. This oppressive model is long being upheld as the solution in the prevention of terror. In contrast, privacy in the UK may be loosely perceived as temporary involuntary sacrifice, normally in exchange for apparent protections from greater threats and danger. Of course, such infringement of “rights” is cautiously exercised and often challenged in the court of human rights. Many also argue such lack of control is the very platform for radicalism and extremism to flourish.

The establishments in the West are long aspired to look at Eastern authoritarian control “demanding to disclose” for security; Conversely, society from the East are looking Westward “fighting for the rights” of freedom. In reality, the divergent views of these competing ideological values can only be balanced if the dogma of what constitutes “the threat to security” and “rights to privacy” can be agreed upon.

Fifteen years following 9/11 attack, the horrific memory of the atrocity is unfading, and the public support for anti-terrorism efforts remains strong. Terrorism is now considered fourth generation warfare, in order to achieve “alien” political, religious or ideological aims, threatening our lives and the way of life. The 2001 brutality is a constant reminder of destructive nature of terrorism, and should never be repeated at all cost. Despite not having much recollection of the tragedy at the age of one, I was brought up with heightened awareness of terrorism, and accept the government as the key defender of peace. To play the role of guardian, the establishment is entrusted and forgiven to do whatever necessary, for the overall good. This practice has been accepted in the anti-terrorism laws are imposed in various forms, across most jurisdictions for the protection of the society.

Whatever your view is about Julian Assange, it is undeniable the exposure of the WikiLeaks had sparked a fundamental shift in the “unconditional” backing of surrendering civil liberty in the name of national security. The summer of revelations uncovered the extent of the surveillance programs by the National Security Agency, to collect and analyze Internet and communications data generated by millions of general public, undoubtedly ignited the debate the question of how much of personal privacy needs be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism? In a personal viewpoint, as a young adult living through the millennial era, I have come to my first realization the vulnerability of surrendering my privacy. For the first time, I realized my cyber-footprint is my identity, and is now susceptible to manipulation and abuse.

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noble causes.” The echo of the warning from the political activist, Thomas Paine, suddenly became a cause of concern. The public sentiment has suddenly alienated in the divided views of either “Giving up the privacy is the price we pay” or “No surrender of privacy in name of security”. Although the concerns over terrorism has yet to fully recede, as the anxiety over terrorism wanes, the unconditional tradeoff of the counterterrorism methods to sacrifice privacy will soon be questionable.

Many argue if one has nothing to hide, then there is nothing to be worried”. The counterargument is: if the establishment equally has nothing to hide, the complete transparency is also nothing to be concern of. As the shift in these conflicting values progresses, the ongoing struggle to find an appropriate balance of security and liberty can only be achieved when the secrecy of surveillance is unveiled. When more transparency is divulged, scrutiny and open debate should follow. This is the only way to gain trust for the future scale and nature of national security efforts to continue, with checks and balances.

I end my view with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, the most revolutionary founding father of the United States: “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. I asked myself one simple question: “Am I still protecting my privacy, even it means I may die in a terrorist attack?” Without hesitation, the answer is an outright YES!

#popular #GlobalizedIssues